CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 janvier 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s888E4C48 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s9C57A56F { width:204.47pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 43495/98 by Terence CONNELL and Others against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 8 January 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   M. Pellonpää , President ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 9 July 1998 and registered on 18   September 1998, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the letter dated 27 September 2001 from the respondent Government and the applicants’ reply dated 23 November 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Terence Connell, Craig Turner, Mark Love, Jonathan Moore, Gary Abdie and David Godfrey are United Kingdom nationals, who were born in 1940, 1979, 1977, 1977, 1976 and 1972 respectively. The first applicant died in March 2000, having expressed the wish that the application should be pursued. The other applicants live in or near Bolton and Manchester. They were represented before the Court by Ms   N. Hall, a lawyer practising in Manchester. The respondent Government were represented by Mrs Helen Upton, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were charged with indecent assault and buggery in connection with consensual homosexual relations between them. They were convicted or pleaded guilty, and were sentenced on 20 February 1998. The first applicant was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment for gross indecency, inter alia , with the second applicant, suspended for two years, and a certificate of conviction was issued under the Sex Offenders Act 1997. A combination order of 12 months’ probation and 100 hours community service was made in respect of the second and third applicants for gross indecency; two probation orders of two years each were made in respect of the fourth applicant on two counts of buggery, one of which was with a man under the age of 18 years (the second applicant); the fifth applicant was ordered to perform 150 hours community service for gross indecency, and a combination order of 12 months’ probation and 100 hours community service was made against the sixth applicant for gross indecency and buggery. On 11 February 1999 the Court of Appeal reduced the sentences of the second to sixth sentences, replacing the original sentences by 12 months probation orders (for the second to fourth and the sixth applicants), and a one year conditional discharge (for the fifth applicant). On 5 March 1999 it confirmed the first applicant’s sentence. B.     Relevant domestic law Section 12 (1) of the   Sexual Offences Act 1967 provides for the offence of buggery, and Section 13 of that Act provides for the offence of “gross indecency with another man”. The Sexual Offences Act 1967 provided that homosexual acts in private between consenting adult men - buggery with another man or gross indecency between men - were no longer an offence if done in private and when not more than two persons took part or were present. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article   8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, about the law criminalising homosexual acts, and the application of that law in their case. THE LAW The Court notes that the Government in a letter dated 27 September 2001 informed the Court that in correspondence with the applicants’ solicitor, they have agreed to pay to five of the applicants (Mr Love, Mr   Moore, Mr   Abdie, Mr Turner and the personal representatives of Mr Connell) GBP   15,000, and   to Mr Godfrey, GBP 16,000 to cover any pecuniary and non pecuniary loss suffered from the alleged violation, including costs, as full and final settlement of their claims. In the light of the settlement reached, the applicants’ representative requested in a letter dated 23   November 2001 that the application be struck out of the list of cases. Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, the Court finds that the matter has been resolved. Furthermore, in accordance with Article   37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.   For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Michael O’Boyle   Matti Pellonpää   Registrar   President